Re: [CR]Interview with Bill Stevenson; now Limiteds

(Example: Framebuilders:Pino Morroni)

Subject: Re: [CR]Interview with Bill Stevenson; now Limiteds
From: "Bill Bryant" <bill_bryant@prodigy.net>
To: Classic Rendezvous <classicrendezvous@bikelist.org>
In-Reply-To: <B9E28BE0.DF0D%stevens@veloworks.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2002 06:12:39 -0800

on 10/28/02 5:38 AM, Steven L. Sheffield at stevens@veloworks.com wrote:
>
> The Eisentraut Limited was a lower-priced production model ... and pretty
> much a complete failure. Eisentraut himself pretty much disavows them.
>

Gee, I dunno... I think of "complete failure" as crappy bikes not worth a damn. IMHO, the god-awful Lamberts of the mid-70s could be a good example of this dubious status. Unlike the Eisentraut Limited, they were indeed the Yugo of their day. (Okay, Lambert collectors, lighten up. Go ride your bike 20,000 miles and report back afterward.)

In the busy northern California cycling scene of the 1970s, I saw plenty of satisfied Limited owners who were quite pleased with the bike's performance, quality and price. Nor I did I observe that the Limited had a higher than average frame failure rate for their price/quality range. Some broke, but so did plenty of other brands. Sure, the owners knew it wasn't an top-of-the-line custom 'Traut, but they were pretty good bikes nonetheless.

If there were production, delivery and sales problems that made the Limiteds unsuccessful from a business owner's point of view, not to mention the radical shift from a one-man frame shop to having to manage a small work force of novice framebuilders (!) to compete successfully with established competitors, then that might be a more accurate appraisal. But to call them "complete failures" is off the mark, IMHO. As to "disavowing" them, Albert is well-known for not holding some of his earlier work in as high a regard as others might. I find that the mark of a self-effacing perfectionist, not such a bad thing when building bikes.

Bill Bryant
Santa Cruz, CA